Rails spinoffs - Sep 2006 - Prototype: "element-id".$() instead of $('element-id')

The Prototype library gives us the $() operation for converting a DOM
element id into the DOM element: $(''element-id''). It also
appends a
bunch of functions to the resulting object.

Sometimes though, passing a string into the $() function doesn''t read
well; and only makes Javascript code harder to read. For example:
$(window.button_list()[3]).hide()

Instead, it''d be nice to have normal chainability. I like the
following syntax: window.button_list()[3].$().hide().

That is, call the $() method on a string object, instead of passing the
string into the $() method.

Add this code into your application:

String.prototype.$ = function() {
  return $(document.getElementById(this));
}
>From article:
http://drnicwilliams.com/2006/09/11/prototype-call-dollar-on-string/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Hi,

Dr Nic a écrit :
> Sometimes though, passing a string into the $() function doesn''t
read
> well; and only makes Javascript code harder to read. For example:
> $(window.button_list()[3]).hide()
Actually, this is widely acclaimed as a nice way to do it.  Of course,
there''s no accounting for taste, but it is nicely unobstrusive, which
is
the whole point of choosing such a short name.
> Instead, it''d be nice to have normal chainability. I like the
> following syntax: window.button_list()[3].$().hide().
Suit your taste, it''s pretty easy to do so.  But I don''t think
I dare
too much in asserting this will *not* happen in the official codebase.

-- 
Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD
tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I agree, and I still use the $('element-id') version in most places. I
found
'element-id'.$() reads well within a line of complex code where it
becomes
less obvious what the $(...) is enveloping.

Cheers
Nic

On 9/11/06, Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD <tdd@tddsworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Dr Nic a écrit :
> > Sometimes though, passing a string into the $() function doesn't
read
> > well; and only makes Javascript code harder to read. For example:
> > $(window.button_list()[3]).hide()
>
> Actually, this is widely acclaimed as a nice way to do it.  Of course,
> there's no accounting for taste, but it is nicely unobstrusive, which
is
> the whole point of choosing such a short name.
>
> > Instead, it'd be nice to have normal chainability. I like the
> > following syntax: window.button_list()[3].$().hide().
>
> Suit your taste, it's pretty easy to do so.  But I don't think I
dare
> too much in asserting this will *not* happen in the official codebase.
>
> --
> Christophe Porteneuve aka TDD
> tdd@tddsworld.com
>
> >
>

-- 
Dr Nic Williams
http://www.drnicwilliams.com - Ruby/Rails blog
skype: nicwilliams
(m) +31 62 494 8552
(p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
(f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Why not write that as

String.prototype.$ = function() {
   return $(this);
}

?

-Thomas

Am 11.09.2006 um 09:59 schrieb Dr Nic:
>
> The Prototype library gives us the $() operation for converting a DOM
> element id into the DOM element: $(''element-id''). It also
appends a
> bunch of functions to the resulting object.
>
> Sometimes though, passing a string into the $() function doesn''t
read
> well; and only makes Javascript code harder to read. For example:
> $(window.button_list()[3]).hide()
>
> Instead, it''d be nice to have normal chainability. I like the
> following syntax: window.button_list()[3].$().hide().
>
> That is, call the $() method on a string object, instead of passing  
> the
> string into the $() method.
>
> Add this code into your application:
>
> String.prototype.$ = function() {
>   return $(document.getElementById(this));
> }
>
>> From article:
> http://drnicwilliams.com/2006/09/11/prototype-call-dollar-on-string/
>
>
> >
--
Thomas Fuchs
wollzelle

http://www.wollzelle.com

questentier on AIM
madrobby on irc.freenode.net

http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management
http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript
http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before





--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

It didn''t seem to work for me when I tried it:

In Firebug:
>>> "element-id".$()
["e","l","e","m","e","n","t","-","i","d"]

Any ideas why $(this) on a string defaults to splitting the string into
chars?

On 9/11/06, Thomas Fuchs <t.fuchs-moWQItti3gBl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
>
> Why not write that as
>
> String.prototype.$ = function() {
>    return $(this);
> }
>
> ?
>
> -Thomas
>
> Am 11.09.2006 um 09:59 schrieb Dr Nic:
>
> >
> > The Prototype library gives us the $() operation for converting a DOM
> > element id into the DOM element: $(''element-id''). It
also appends a
> > bunch of functions to the resulting object.
> >
> > Sometimes though, passing a string into the $() function
doesn''t read
> > well; and only makes Javascript code harder to read. For example:
> > $(window.button_list()[3]).hide()
> >
> > Instead, it''d be nice to have normal chainability. I like the
> > following syntax: window.button_list()[3].$().hide().
> >
> > That is, call the $() method on a string object, instead of passing
> > the
> > string into the $() method.
> >
> > Add this code into your application:
> >
> > String.prototype.$ = function() {
> >   return $(document.getElementById(this));
> > }
> >
> >> From article:
> > http://drnicwilliams.com/2006/09/11/prototype-call-dollar-on-string/
> >
> >
> > >
>
> --
> Thomas Fuchs
> wollzelle
>
> http://www.wollzelle.com
>
> questentier on AIM
> madrobby on irc.freenode.net
>
> http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management
> http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript
> http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>

-- 
Dr Nic Williams
http://www.drnicwilliams.com - Ruby/Rails blog
skype: nicwilliams
(m) +31 62 494 8552
(p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
(f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Good question.

 >>> function $(){ return arguments[0]; }
 >>> String.prototype.$ = function() { return $(this) }
function () {...}
 >>> "blah".$()
["b","l","a","h"]
 >>> function $(){ return arguments[0].toUpperCase(); }
 >>> "blah".$()
"BLAH"

Anyway, no time to work this out,
Thomas

Am 11.09.2006 um 15:50 schrieb Nic Williams:
> It didn''t seem to work for me when I tried it:
>
> In Firebug:
>
> >>> "element-id".$()
> ["e", "l","e", "m","e",
"n","t", "-","i", "d"]
>
> Any ideas why $(this) on a string defaults to splitting the string  
> into chars?
>
> On 9/11/06, Thomas Fuchs
<t.fuchs-moWQItti3gBl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Why not write that as
>
> String.prototype.$ = function() {
>    return $(this);
> }
>
> ?
>
> -Thomas
>
> Am 11.09.2006 um 09:59 schrieb Dr Nic:
>
> >
> > The Prototype library gives us the $() operation for converting a  
> DOM
> > element id into the DOM element: $(''element-id''). It
also appends a
> > bunch of functions to the resulting object.
> >
> > Sometimes though, passing a string into the $() function
doesn''t
> read
> > well; and only makes Javascript code harder to read. For example:
> > $(window.button_list()[3]).hide()
> >
> > Instead, it''d be nice to have normal chainability. I like the
> > following syntax: window.button_list()[3].$().hide().
> >
> > That is, call the $() method on a string object, instead of passing
> > the
> > string into the $() method.
> >
> > Add this code into your application:
> >
> > String.prototype.$ = function() {
> >   return $(document.getElementById(this));
> > }
> >
> >> From article:
> > http://drnicwilliams.com/2006/09/11/prototype-call-dollar-on-string/
> >
> >
> > >
>
> -- 
> Thomas Fuchs
> wollzelle
>
> http://www.wollzelle.com
>
> questentier on AIM
> madrobby on irc.freenode.net
>
> http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management
> http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript
> http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before
>
>
>
>
>
>
> skype: nicwilliams
> (m) +31 62 494 8552
> (p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
> (f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)
> >
--
Thomas Fuchs
wollzelle

http://www.wollzelle.com

questentier on AIM
madrobby on irc.freenode.net

http://www.fluxiom.com :: online digital asset management
http://script.aculo.us :: Web 2.0 JavaScript
http://mir.aculo.us :: Where no web developer has gone before






--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

* Thomas Fuchs wrote (11/09/06 15:39):
> Good question.
> 
>>>> function $(){ return arguments[0]; }
>>>> String.prototype.$ = function() { return $(this) }
> function () {...}
>>>> "blah".$()
> ["b","l","a","h"]
>>>> function $(){ return arguments[0].toUpperCase(); }
>>>> "blah".$()
> "BLAH"
>>> String.prototype.X = function() { return (this) }
>>> "blah".X()
["b","l","a","h"]
>>> typeof "blah".X()
"object"
>>> typeof "blah"
"string"
>>> typeof String("blah")
"string"


Not sure what this proves, except that the function returns a thing with
a type "object" rather than type "string". The way firebug
displays
things probably depends on the result of typeof, and arrays give
"object", so Firebug thinks it''s an array. Or something like
that.

Chris

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

So String(this) works.

String.prototype.$ = function() {
  return $(String(this))
}
>>> "map".$()
<div id="map">

Thanks guys.
Cheers
Nic


On 9/11/06, Chris Lear
<chris.lear-kZMsvDh4tCZWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
>
> * Thomas Fuchs wrote (11/09/06 15:39):
> > Good question.
> >
> >>>> function $(){ return arguments[0]; }
> >>>> String.prototype.$ = function() { return $(this) }
> > function () {...}
> >>>> "blah".$()
> > ["b","l","a","h"]
> >>>> function $(){ return arguments[0].toUpperCase(); }
> >>>> "blah".$()
> > "BLAH"
>
>
> >>> String.prototype.X = function() { return (this) }
> >>> "blah".X()
> ["b","l","a","h"]
> >>> typeof "blah".X()
> "object"
> >>> typeof "blah"
> "string"
> >>> typeof String("blah")
> "string"
>
>
> Not sure what this proves, except that the function returns a thing with
> a type "object" rather than type "string". The way
firebug displays
> things probably depends on the result of typeof, and arrays give
> "object", so Firebug thinks it''s an array. Or something
like that.
>
> Chris
>
> >
>

-- 
Dr Nic Williams
http://www.drnicwilliams.com - Ruby/Rails blog
skype: nicwilliams
(m) +31 62 494 8552
(p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
(f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Nic Williams a écrit :
> So String(this) works.
> 
> String.prototype.$ = function() {
>   return $(String(this))
> }
> 
>>>> "map".$()
> <div id="map">
Yeah, the issue with your original implementation is due to this test in
Prototype''s $:

  if (typeof element == "string")

When you refer to yourself, as a String, using this, typeof says
"object".  A more reference-proof way of testing whether you actually
are a string would be to say:

  if (element.constructor === String)

Using this:

function $() {
  var results = [], element;
  for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
    element = arguments[i];
    if (element.constructor === String) {
      element = document.getElementById(element);
    }
    results.push(Element.extend(element));
  }
  return results.reduce();
}

Your original implementation:

  String.prototype.$ = function() { return $(this); }

works well too.

-- 
Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD
"[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark Twain
Email: tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Ahh. Never knew about .constructor field. Thanks. Nic.

On 9/11/06, Christophe Porteneuve <tdd@tddsworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Nic Williams a écrit :
> > So String(this) works.
> >
> > String.prototype.$ = function() {
> >   return $(String(this))
> > }
> >
> >>>> "map".$()
> > <div id="map">
>
> Yeah, the issue with your original implementation is due to this test in
> Prototype's $:
>
>   if (typeof element == "string")
>
> When you refer to yourself, as a String, using this, typeof says
> "object".  A more reference-proof way of testing whether you
actually
> are a string would be to say:
>
>   if (element.constructor === String)
>
> Using this:
>
> function $() {
>   var results = [], element;
>   for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
>     element = arguments[i];
>     if (element.constructor === String) {
>       element = document.getElementById(element);
>     }
>     results.push(Element.extend(element));
>   }
>   return results.reduce();
> }
>
> Your original implementation:
>
>   String.prototype.$ = function() { return $(this); }
>
> works well too.
>
> --
> Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD
> "[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark
Twain
> Email: tdd@tddsworld.com
>
> >
>

-- 
Dr Nic Williams
http://www.drnicwilliams.com - Ruby/Rails blog
skype: nicwilliams
(m) +31 62 494 8552
(p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
(f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Nic Williams a écrit :
> Ahh. Never knew about .constructor field. Thanks. Nic.
You''re welcome :-)

As for .constructor:

- Used in Array.flatten and Form.Element.serialize.
- Specified in ECMA-262 §15.1.4
- Specified in DevMo:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Global_Objects:Function:constructor
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Objects:Object:constructor

BETTER YET:

Another way to get this result would be to use the instanceof operator,
which is admittedly more readable (shame on me!):

if (element instanceof String)

- Used in Object.inspect
- Specified in ECMA-262 §11.8.6
- Specified in DevMo:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Operators:Special_Operators:instanceof_Operator

I''ll offer a patch to Prototype around this.

-- 
Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD
"[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark Twain
Email: tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Except:
>>> "element-id".constructorfunction String() {...}
but:
>>> "element-id" instanceof String
false
(
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Operators:Special_Operators:instanceof_Operator
)

So would it still be useful for a revised $() function?

On 9/11/06, Christophe Porteneuve <tdd@tddsworld.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Nic Williams a écrit :
> > Ahh. Never knew about .constructor field. Thanks. Nic.
>
> You're welcome :-)
>
> As for .constructor:
>
> - Used in Array.flatten and Form.Element.serialize.
> - Specified in ECMA-262 §15.1.4
> - Specified in DevMo:
>
>
>
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Global_Objects:Function:constructor
>
>
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Objects:Object:constructor
>
> BETTER YET:
>
> Another way to get this result would be to use the instanceof operator,
> which is admittedly more readable (shame on me!):
>
> if (element instanceof String)
>
> - Used in Object.inspect
> - Specified in ECMA-262 §11.8.6
> - Specified in DevMo:
>
>
>
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference:Operators:Special_Operators:instanceof_Operator
>
> I'll offer a patch to Prototype around this.
>
> --
> Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD
> "[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark
Twain
> Email: tdd@tddsworld.com
>
> >
>

-- 
Dr Nic Williams
http://www.drnicwilliams.com - Ruby/Rails blog
skype: nicwilliams
(m) +31 62 494 8552
(p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
(f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-spinoffs@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

How about $H for objects:

Object.prototype.$H = function() {
  return $H(this);
}

This is great for console debugging:
>>> anObject.$H().inspect()
"#<Hash:{''key1'': ''value1''}>"

So much fun in 3 lines of code! :)

Nic


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 9/11/06, Nic Williams
<drnicwilliams-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> So would it still be useful for a revised $() function?
There is no need to change $().

What you see is the legacy of Netscape taking a stride away from the
ECMAScript standard.

Netscape''s JS engine treated (and still treats) strings as array of
strings to allow things like "test"[0] to return "t".

I do not know the internal working, but from observation:

When using "this" in a function defined in String.prototype,
"this"
behaves like a string, when the context of the use requires a string.
And it looks like the engine knows document.getElementById() requires
a string. If the context does not require a string, like when using
"this" as a function argument to a user defined function,
"this"
evaluates to an array of chars.

Therefore, the error is not with $(). Besides the before mentioned
$(String(this)), $(this.valueOf()) will work as well.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 9/11/06, Dr Nic <drnicwilliams-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Object.prototype.$H = function() {
Vade retro, Satanas!

This breaks the "Object is an empty container and can be safely looped
with for( in )" convention.

http://erik.eae.net/archives/2005/06/06/22.13.54

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

There has been a previous thread on the overuse of $ type functions.
I can''t remember how long ago that was.... 3-4 months??  Sorry, I
don''t have any more information about that though.

On 9/11/06, Dr Nic <drnicwilliams-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
> How about $H for objects:
>
> Object.prototype.$H = function() {
>   return $H(this);
> }
>
> This is great for console debugging:
>
> >>> anObject.$H().inspect()
> "#<Hash:{''key1'':
''value1''}>"
>
> So much fun in 3 lines of code! :)
>
> Nic
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

That''s a pity. I''ve had lovely fun with it in Firebug for the
last half
hour. :(

On 9/11/06, Martin Bialasinski
<klingeling-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
>
> On 9/11/06, Dr Nic
<drnicwilliams-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Object.prototype.$H = function() {
>
> Vade retro, Satanas!
>
> This breaks the "Object is an empty container and can be safely looped
> with for( in )" convention.
>
> http://erik.eae.net/archives/2005/06/06/22.13.54
>
> >
>

-- 
Dr Nic Williams
http://www.drnicwilliams.com - Ruby/Rails blog
skype: nicwilliams
(m) +31 62 494 8552
(p) +61 7 3102 3237 (finds me anywhere in the world)
(f) +61 7 3305 7572 (sends fax to my email)


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Nic Williams a écrit :
> Except:
> 
>>>> "element-id".constructor
> function String() {...}
> 
> but:
>>>> "element-id" instanceof String
> false
Yeah, saw that.  Kinda weird, btw.  So we would have to use BOTH, with a ||.

-- 
Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD
"[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark Twain
Email: tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Martin Bialasinski a écrit :
>> Object.prototype.$H = function() {
> 
> Vade retro, Satanas!
> 
> This breaks the "Object is an empty container and can be safely looped
> with for( in )" convention.
Aside from the ''$ overuse'' issue, for/in indeed
doesn''t work too good on
Prototype-extended objects, what with all the methods.  Which is
precisely why we now have Object.keys().  You would replace for/in with
Object.keys().each, I guess.


-- 
Christophe Porteneuve a.k.a. TDD
"[They] did not know it was impossible, so they did it." --Mark Twain
Email: tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On 9/12/06, Christophe Porteneuve
<tdd-x+CfDp/qHev2eFz/2MeuCQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Aside from the ''$ overuse'' issue, for/in indeed
doesn''t work too good on
> Prototype-extended objects, what with all the methods.
for ( in ) loops are supposed to work with Objects and they do
flawlessly. This is why Object.prototype is not tempered with. for (
in ) loops do not make sense for the other native data types, and user
defined classes can''t mark properties non-enumerable anyway (a
ECMAScript omission), so for ( in ) can only be used for introspection
on them.

Object.keys() is not there because for ( in ) does not work (it does),
it is a syntactic sugar. If you look at the implementation, it is just
a for ( in ) loop. If it would not work properly, Object.keys() could
not have used it, obviously.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---